Pynchon as propaganda

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 22:26, jbor wrote:
> on 6/4/03 12:09 PM, Paul Mackin at paul.mackin at verizon.net wrote:
> 
> > Who sez any of it is true?
> 
> Many people do say and believe that the various Christian versions of death
> and salvation are true, and I think it's important to accept that fact and
> to respect their beliefs. As I said originally, I don't see the passage as
> being critical of either the soldiers or the chaplains.

I don't see the passage as being critical of anything. Not even of war.
Certainly not of Christian belief or the fact that the Army hires
chaplains. 

> 
> The term "nothingness" derives from Sartre and Heidegger and not from
> Christian theology, and it is not the same thing as Preterition at all. If
> Preterition was what was meant then that would have been the term used. It
> isn't. (Preterition wouldn't sit happily in that list either, by the way.)

Yes, of course there is the existential thing. But nothingness also
means the non-existence of the person one once was, which Christians
seem to want to avoid and hope they can through the resurrection of the
body. . Preterition is the frustration of that hope. The fate of being
passed over. It's a neat little bundle of metaphysical thinking but
there you are. 

> 
> Whichever way you look at it the idea of "nothingness" doesn't really fit
> with the other four concepts the chaplains talk to the soldiers about. Put
> it under erasure if you like; it just struck me as significant.

Christianity would be pointless without the alternative of non-existence
after death. I wish you would think about this. Not to believe it of
course but to understand Christianity.

> 
> All I did was to offer an interpretation of the specific passage from GR
> which was being reappropriated to propagandistic ends. I made no reference
> to my beliefs, to yours, Pynchon's, or anyone else's, except to say that the
> paragraph from the text reads most coherently and powerfully from an
> atheistic standpoint. And added that even floating that as a possibility
> here is something which is generally met with vitriol and condemnation.


I think it reads as completely indifferent to the correctness of atheism
or theism. If (before I entered the fray) someone has read it as
favoring either position then I am in hearty disagreement with him or
her.